One of the great benefits of having been a defense lawyer for thirty years before I fully switched over to representing patients and families is that I have huge experience evaluating cases.
Case assessments are a fundamental skill for all trial lawyers, but defense lawyers have the benefit of being required to do deliberate and reasoned written analyses. It’s not easy either – but it’s excellent training.
At the most basic level, the analysis is a seemingly simple two-part equation. What are the odds of the plaintiff prevailing and, if the plaintiff does prevail, what is the likely verdict range. If the plaintiff has a 60% chance of winning and the range is $200,000 to $400,000, the “value” of the case is $120,000 to $240,000.
Of course, in actual practice the evaluation is anything but simple. There are lots of factors which play into both parts of the analysis.
Skilled lawyers will often assess the same set of facts and come to different conclusions. Here’s what is curious, however: Frequently, there’s an overlap. Using my example above, let’s say the defense thinks the plaintiff only has an 25% chance of winning, but they are worried about a higher verdict, so their range is $300,000 to $500,000. That’s a significantly different assessment, but the “values” still overlap at $120,000 to $125,000.
Naturally, one side is never privy to the other’s assessment.
When you have been at this business a long time, you get quite good at this process. This is one reason why those of us on the plaintiffs’ side should always maintain a healthy respect/wariness for defense lawyers and insurance/corporate overseers. Make no mistake, there’s generally a method to their madness
When it comes to analyzing cases, we always need to be at least as good as the other side – and, hopefully, better.
We are.
Comentarios